- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
We all want to have it. It is the rich, the corporations, the lobbied politicians, the people who stand to profit that refuse to have the discussion.
While I don’t disagree with that at all, I will point out that I try to have this conversation with people all the time. I get mostly ignored on the matter.
Both points are very valid. I have had a difficult time trying to approach the topic of alternatives to capitalism with other people.
I try to speak to them in language that they would understand. I also try to speak to them in a way that would empathise with them. I am very careful with my words because I do not want to accidentally or directly attack them and cause a defensive response. Once someone becomes defensive, they are more likely to reject what’s being said to them and become hostile towards me and my lifestyle.
The most common issue I have in these conversations is that the other person I’m talking to appears to be unable to imagine another life without capitalism. All their problem solving skills heavily rely on buying more. Their long term goals center around accumulating wealth. The people they look up to and attempt to follow are all wealth hoarders.
I don’t expect to be able to deprogram anyone from the constant propaganda produced by capitalism. It does sadden me though. The people that I talked to are just not curious about any alternatives and would rather defend a lifestyle and the systems that oppresses their very own happiness and freedom to be themselves. These conversations exhaust me and now I’m just too low on energy to have the motivation to try anymore.
I do hope to one day see the start of change. Where common people finally understand just how hilariously outnumbered wealth hoarders are and begin to work together to rebuild communities that reject and fight against such oppressive peoples and systems.
Unfortunately without much support, especially from any local community, it’s hard to even approach this issue.
A few ideas:
- families tend to be non capitalist. We hand over a lot to our children without asking for repayment
- exchange networks are common among friends. You help somebody out and do not get anything in return immediatly, but a later when they need help, you come and help them
- roads, schools, public transport and so forth is often run by governments, which in a democracy should belong to the people, hence all of us
- clubs often have ownership of assets, which are shared among members. Sports fields for a sports club and so forth. Nobody tries to make money of that
- credit unions are a common form of cutomer cooperatives
- workers cooperatives are also a thing, although much rarer, but they work
- creative commons like Wikipedia and open source projects like Linux, Firefox and so forth are a thing
- a lot of people volunteer for a lot of different causes
As for buying stuff, the key here is to ask what they are buying it for. For example is having a car worth working an extra day for. That btw is rather realistic depending on the income. After all less spending = less income needed.
I appreciate the suggestions but this brings up another issue that I have had with these types of conversations. Far too many of the people I’ve spoken to live in a constant state of hypocrisy or contradiction.
It’s going to be hard for me to fully explain this as I just don’t have the energy to deal with people anymore and have chosen to keep in contact with very few people over the past few years. That is to say, my contact with people in general has been somewhat limited.
It does somewhat go back to my points about defensiveness and defending peoples and systems that are oppressive. On many occasion, explaining certain hypocrisies as simply and clearly to the best of my efforts was still seen as an attack on themselves. The simple suggestion that change for all requires change on a personal level was unthinkable for them.
Even though capitalism is causing so much unhappiness in their lives, they want it to stay because it seems to me that it brings them a sort of comfort through habit or routine. Disrupting what brings their vision of comfort is scary and so they react in hostility.
I say all this through my experience of fighting for the right to be treated with dignity in a workplace that was crumbling under it’s own weight of sexism, racism, classism and ageism. Where it was important to have as many people be supportive of what I was fighting for so we could all benefit together. What I received was constant shame and belittlement for opposing authority alongside praises for opposing authority. From the same people. Does that make sense? Not to me.
Humans are complex. Far too complex for me to even attempt to explain how complex they can be. Unfortunately, I just no longer have the energy or patience to continue. Especially as a person of colour in a small conservative town.
We’re at “ok we all agree but what do we do?”
criticised WWF/ZSL for failing to identify capitalism as the “crucial (and often causal) link” between the destruction of nature and galloping levels of consumption. “By naming capitalism as a root cause,” wrote Pigott, “we identify a particular set of practices and ideas that are by no means permanent nor inherent to the condition of being human” and that “if we don’t name it, we can’t tackle it”. Capitalism, according to Jason Hickel, academic and author of Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World (Penguin, 2020), has three main defining characteristics: enclosure and artificial scarcity, perpetual expansion, and a lack of democracy, insisting “democratic principles are rarely allowed to operate in the sphere of production, where decisions are made overwhelmingly by those who control capital”.
As a socialist, I think it’s important to point out that ending capitalism isn’t the panacea for climate change that this article is alluding too.
Alternative forms of economic organizational hierarchies can be just as damaging unless protecting the environment is foundational to their economic principles.
Socialism isn’t inherently more environmentally friendly, it’s just a different way to organize productive forces, with the entire goal being increasing production capabilities until we have reached a post scarcity society.
Even in the few examples of command economies we’ve seen throughout history, we don’t see a more environmentally conscious society. What we typically see is rampant industrialization and an increase in production without regard for consumption.
Now I’m not claiming that economic systems do not matter, or attempting a “both sides” argument. Clearly a command economy has more ability to tackle climate change, but only if environmentalism is made a foundational priority.
If we just label capitalism as the enemy, and then carry on as other socialist governments have before… We very well may make huge leaps on quality of life for the majority, increase industrialization in the global south, and build a more equitable world, but still end up killing the planet.
The import part is “can be just ad damaging”. Which is why we have to come up with a better alternative.
As for a command economy. That has proven itself to be a somewhat good idea in times of war, as it allows for quick massive changes. Certainly intressting when you want to transition to renewables, built up public transport everywhere and so forth. However in 1989 Russia had per capita emissions of 16.3t per capita making it one of the worsed countries in the world on that metric. Besides some small countries only the UAE, US, Canada and Czechia had higher emissions. Czechia also being a command economy. All of that while the material quality of life in the Soviet Union was worse then many countries in the West.
The problem with that is that command economies turn into dictatorships, when they lack control mechanisms. The only examples I can think of are war economies, which have been rather command economy like and have not turned into full dictatorships. Those however have also been limited.
So imho the best way of doing it, is to have the government set limits and have a mix of state owned companies, workers cooperatives, consumer cooperatives and some companies run by foundations in it as well. That way you avoid the concentration of power held by private companies and especially command economies. It also comes with a good set of checks and balances and can be adapted to local needs. The good part is we also know all of this works at least on a small scale.
What we must realize is that capitalist societies would sooner implode themselves than listen to what you have to say on this matter. “But-but capitalism actually works!!!” I’m sure you know this phrase all too well. You won’t be able to convince people until you provide a valid alternative. Before then, you will fall on deaf ears. People have too much invested in this system for your words to sway them.
If you can create your own micro-state with its own economy and governance, and if it solves the problems that capitalism creates, people will flock in droves to become your citizens. People need to see the alternative. You can’t just dump theory and literature on their lap. “We” won’t win by fighting for the planet, we have to change minds. Do that, and the rest will come.
